And I've already addressed this numerous times. Berkeley tells us how to distinguish error form veracity, but he doesn't tell us what error consists in.

Take the allegedly illusory perception of a stick appearing broken in a glass of water. The big question is this: why is the perception of a stick being broken in water an erroneous perception in the first place if no such material stick exists??? Berkeley has NO answer to this question--which is a good enough reason to reject his view.

Moreover, if some of my ideas are erroneous, then God is implanting erroneous ideas in my mind such as the perception of a stick being broken in a glass of water. And this makes God a deceiver. I find that very implausible.

There are philosophers who have studied and taught Kant for years who would disagree strongly with that view.

You might want to check out Arthur Collin's "Possible Experience" for an alternate view of the matter.

I am a process philosophy (A.N.W), panentheist, process theology (Hartshorne) and a panpsychist advocate.

I am agreeable with process philosophy not the others. Note Heraclitus as well.

Well not to totally derail the thread but process philosophy entails a certain monism to mind/matter and thus a certain degree of panpsychism. The theological implications of process theology are less essential to the general notion of process as primary reality and creativity as ultimate principle. My form of process philosophy is pretty much straight Alfred North Whitehead (talk about difficult reading).

From post #364:


So the fact that a stone is solid (as shown by kicking it) does not prove that it is material. Hence Johnson did not refute Berkeley "thus". QED.

---------- Post added 03-24-2010 at 10:46 PM ----------

You evidently do not get the point of the magician example. Johnson did not prove that he kicked a material object, or even that there was a material object to be kicked. In order to refute Berkeley, he needs to do that. Kicking a stone proves nothing, just like my magician example does not prove that he can turn water into wine, even if he really has that ability. You do agree, don't you, that if you saw a magic act, you would not simply believe the appearance was real, right? But suppose it was real. It being real would not prove it is real, and that is the point; that is why kicking a stone, material or otherwise, is insufficient to prove anything about what Berkeley was saying.

If you assert that all dogs are brown, and I reply to you that what you assert is unlikely, since there is really no good reason all dogs should be brown or be all any color, I could be said to have refuted you even if I have not shown you a non-brown dog. "Refute" need not mean, "prove not". It may mean only, "show it is very implausible".

But we often prove things by doing things. For instance, I can prove to you that the brakes on my car stop my car, by, of course, pressing on the brakes. Or do you not think my pressing on the brakes proves that the brakes stop my car?

With your magician example, if the magician repeatedly turned water into wine, I am not sure why that would not be proof that he could turn water into wine. What would the magician have to do in order to prove he could turn water into wine?

With this sort of logic, I am not sure how we could prove anything. Don't we often go by empirical evidence?

I have read Kant's CoPR very thoroughly except for the last few chapters.

Despite Kant refutation of Berkeley, they both share the same core ideas (other than the absolute existence of God).

Btw, in the first Edition of the CoPR, Kant agreed with Berkeley completely but changed his mind in the 2nd edition with a slightly different interpretation of transcendental idealism.

Meaning that if he had an answer to the above, you would accept his view.

I mentioned it before, that Berkeley did account for 'error' in his theories.

Let me get this straight: (1) You are not prepared to argue any points in detail, but then continue to insist that I am wrong?? LOL!

Further:
(2) I've given several arguments against Berkeley's Idealism, but you won't tell me why you think my arguments are invalid or unsound.
(3) You continue to claim I misunderstand Berkeley, but you won't tell me how I do, in fact, allegely misunderstand him.
(4) You continue to claim Berkeley's technical understandings of "perception," "matter," and "Idea" are "more complex than ordinary conventional meanings," but you won't tell me what these allegedly esoteric meanings actually are to which you and Berkeley presumably have some kind of priviledged mystical access no one else does.

This is not how honest philosophers undertake these kinds of discussions, and I find it terribly uncharitable and dishonest. You might as well be quoting from the Bible itself for proof that the the Bible is Divinely inspired, just as you continue to quote from Berkeley's texts without telling me how these passages relate to actual objections I continue to advance in this thread. As a result, the only arguments you've offered on the table for consideration have amounted to a continued appeal to some kind of vague and mysterious Berkeleyan Authority without actually engaging in any amount of critical thinking or rational discussion yourself. I hate to say it, you're coming up drastically short here.

I know Kant did differentiate his transcendental idealism from Berkeley's, but despite the differences, i still see core similarities

as both are still idealism albeit as different type and name.

As for the points on Berkeley, you have a lot of arrows to shoot but they are not landing on the target and in line with what i intend to discuss.

As for the point on Berkeley and 'error'.
You merely stated that Berkeley had none at all.

The evidence i provided was to prove you wrong.

Whether he was right or wrong on this quote is not the issue on hand.

Btw, i started in pg 6 of now 40+ pages and i have provided quotes after quotes to get those opposing Berkeley to get in line with his ideas before they critique him with fairness and justice.

That makes absolutely no sense as a response to ACB's post to which you appear to have been responding. WHat on earth are you trying to say???

---------- Post added 03-25-2010 at 02:24 AM ----------



Samm

(3) If Berkelian Idealism is true, then error doesn't exist.
(4) Kant's Transcendental argument against Berkelian Idealism.

*All of these reasons provide sufficient justification for rejecting Berkelian Idealism.

Btw, in the first Edition of the CoPR, Kant agreed with Berkeley completely but changed his mind in the 2nd edition with a slightly different interpretation of transcendental idealism.

But when later I read Kant's great work in the first edition, which is already so rare, I saw, to my great pleasure, all these contradictions disappear, and found that although Kant does not use the formula, "No object without a subject," he yet explains, with just as much decision as Berkeley and I do, the outer world lying before us in space and time as the mere idea of the subject that knows it.
Therefore, for example, he says there without reserve (p. 383):
"If I take away the thinking subject, the whole material world must disappear, for it is nothing but a phenomenon in the sensibility of our subject, and a class of its ideas."
But the whole passage from p. 348-392, in which Kant expounded his pronounced idealism with peculiar beauty and clearness, was suppressed by him in the second edition, and instead of it a number of remarks controverting it were introduced.

In this way then the text of the "Critique of Pure Reason," as it has circulated from the year 1787 to the year 1838, was disfigured and spoilt, and it became a self-contradictory book, the sense of which could not therefore be thoroughly clear and comprehensible to any one.

The particulars about this, and also my conjectures as to the reasons and the weaknesses which may have influenced Kant so to disfigure his immortal work,
I have given in a letter to Professor Rosenkranz, and he has quoted the principal passage of it in his preface to the second volume of the edition of Kant's collected works edited by him, to which I therefore refer. In consequence of my representations, Professor Rosenkranz was induced in the year 1838 to restore the "Critique of Pure Reason" to its original form, for in the second volume referred to he had it printed according to the first edition of 1781, by which he has rendered an inestimable service to philosophy; indeed, he has perhaps saved from destruction the most important work of German literature; and this should always be remembered to his credit


But let no one imagine that he knows the "Critique of Pure Reason " and has a distinct conception of Kant's teaching if he has only read the second or one of the later editions.
That is altogether impossible, for he has only read a mutilated, spoilt, and to a certain extent ungenuine text. It is my duty to say this here decidedly and for every one's warning.
[Unquote]

Sidenote: Even Schopenhauer grasped the main point of Berkerley, i.e. "No object without a subject," i.e. unthought matter.
The misinterpretation of "Esse is Percipi" by Johnson and his supporters is a strawman.

Yes. Berkeley can (perhaps) account for the appearance of errror via lack of coherence. But he cannot account for the existence of error, vIa correspondence. For Berkeley (as for Rorty) it is "the world well lost".

Of course, you are right about Kant. Kant insisted that he was not a subjective Idealist just because he repudiated Berkeley. Of course, he did not distinguish between subjective and other kinds of Idealism since it was Kant himself, who cleared the path to Absolute (or objective) Idealism

Humanity just does not distinguish between the history of philosophy, and the history of ideas. He wants to engage only in the latter, but not in the former.

Here's Schopenhauer's remarks on the issue in his 'CRITICISM OF THE KANTIAN PHILOSOPHY'

Quote:

But when later I read Kant's great work in the first edition, which is already so rare, I saw, to my great pleasure, all these contradictions disappear, and found that although Kant does not use the formula, "No object without a subject," he yet explains, with just as much decision as Berkeley and I do, the outer world lying before us in space and time as the mere idea of the subject that knows it.
Therefore, for example, he says there without reserve (p. 383):
"If I take away the thinking subject, the whole material world must disappear, for it is nothing but a phenomenon in the sensibility of our subject, and a class of its ideas."
But the whole passage from p. 348-392, in which Kant expounded his pronounced idealism with peculiar beauty and clearness, was suppressed by him in the second edition, and instead of it a number of remarks controverting it were introduced.

In this way then the text of the "Critique of Pure Reason," as it has circulated from the year 1787 to the year 1838, was disfigured and spoilt, and it became a self-contradictory book, the sense of which could not therefore be thoroughly clear and comprehensible to any one.

The particulars about this, and also my conjectures as to the reasons and the weaknesses which may have influenced Kant so to disfigure his immortal work,
I have given in a letter to Professor Rosenkranz, and he has quoted the principal passage of it in his preface to the second volume of the edition of Kant's collected works edited by him, to which I therefore refer. In consequence of my representations, Professor Rosenkranz was induced in the year 1838 to restore the "Critique of Pure Reason" to its original form, for in the second volume referred to he had it printed according to the first edition of 1781, by which he has rendered an inestimable service to philosophy; indeed, he has perhaps saved from destruction the most important work of German literature; and this should always be remembered to his credit


But let no one imagine that he knows the "Critique of Pure Reason " and has a distinct conception of Kant's teaching if he has only read the second or one of the later editions.
That is altogether impossible, for he has only read a mutilated, spoilt, and to a certain extent ungenuine text. It is my duty to say this here decidedly and for every one's warning.
[Unquote]

Sidenote: Even Schopenhauer grasped the main point of Berkerley, i.e. "No object without a subject," i.e. unthought matter.
The misinterpretation of "Esse is Percipi" by Johnson and his supporters is a strawman.

Sorry. Nice try, no cigar. I regret to inform you that Kantian scholars unanimously reject Schopenhauer as a reliable source on Kant at all.

Schopenhauer's philosophy is thoroughly metaphysical and is a perversion of Kant's actual ideas contained in the Critique. You also need to keep in mind that real Kantian scholarship has been undertaken the last 200 years since Schopenhauer's own isolated fumbling over trying to understand the text when it first came out. So you will get drastically different interpretations of it by most scholars who are in direct opposition to Schopenhauer's own poorly-formed biases.

Exactly. It's funny that you mentioned Rorty, because I was thinking the same thing when I was typing all this out.



I think that sounds right, although Kant would surely not appreciate the German Absolute Idealism turn in the 19th century from Hegel, Fichte, and Schelling because it was thoroughly metaphysical in spirit--precisely what Kant rejected as even possible at all...so we cannot forget Kant's Transcendental Idealism also cleared the path to empirical realism which is self-evident in his Critque of Berkeley's metaphysical idealsim.



I can tell. Now we have some new quotes from Schopenhauer's take on Kant's philosophy--ideas which Schopenhauer tries to wed with Platonic Abstract Metaphysics.

Kantian scholars unanimously reject Schopenhauer as a reliable source on Kant anyways.

---------- Post added 03-25-2010 at 06:53 AM ----------

Humanity;143460 wrote:

Here's Schopenhauer's remarks on the issue in his 'CRITICISM OF THE KANTIAN PHILOSOPHY'

Sorry. Nice try, no cigar. I regret to inform you that Kantian scholars unanimously reject Schopenhauer as a reliable source on Kant at all.

Schopenhauer's philosophy is thoroughly metaphysical and is a perversion of Kant's actual ideas contained in the Critique.

I accept there are opposing views but who are you to decide who is right or wrong.
Btw, some big majority did claim the Earth was flat.

I am not claiming Wiki has the highest degree of reliability.
Apparently the only criticism of Kant listed in wiki is that of Schopenhauer.

Where is your source to support your above assertion?

---------- Post added 03-25-2010 at 08:19 AM ----------

Extrain;143470 wrote:

Sorry. Nice try, no cigar. I regret to inform you that Kantian scholars unanimously reject Schopenhauer as a reliable source on Kant at all.

Schopenhauer's philosophy is thoroughly metaphysical and is a perversion of Kant's actual ideas contained in the Critique. You also need to keep in mind that real Kantian scholarship has been undertaken the last 200 years since Schopenhauer's own isolated fumbling over trying to understand the text when it first came out. So you will get drastically different interpretations of it by most scholars who are in direct opposition to Schopenhauer's own poorly-formed biases.

Wrong again, Schopenhauer did discuss about metaphysics in a positive note,
but his philosophy is not fundamentally metaphysical and ultimately not resting on anything ontological.

The last para of Schopenhauer in WAWR Vol. I confirmed it.

But, conversely, to those in whom the will has turned and has denied itself,
this our world, which is so real, with all its suns and milky-ways, is nothing. 1

1 This is also just the Prajna-Paramita of the Buddhists,
the "beyond all knowledge," i.e., the point at which subject and object are no more
[no longer exist]. (Cf. J. J. Schmidt, " Ueber das Mahajana und Pradschna-Paramita.")


Schopenhauer did rely on some of Kant's idea but the rest of his philosophy is from his own thoughts with association from Hinduism and Buddhism.

As is noted, on the main issues you are normally off tangent.

---------- Post added 03-25-2010 at 09:19 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Humanity
I know Kant did differentiate his transcendental idealism from Berkeley's, but despite the differences, i still see core similarities

Extrain;143451 wrote:

How so? Explain.

I had mentioned earlier, i am only interested in the non-theistic aspects of Berkeley's philosophy.
On this note, both Berkeley and Kant introduced the mind as a critical concept in their consideration of reality.
The fundamental of both their philosophies are in opposite contrast to philosophical realism, which assert that reality is absolutely independent of all human involvements.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Humanity
as both are still idealism albeit as different type and name.

[QUOTE=Extrain;143451]
No. Berkeley's idealism is a metaphysical thesis about what does, and does not, exist. Kant's Transcendental idealism is an epistemological thesis about the conditions of all possible experience (and knowledge).

I accept there are opposing views but who are you to decide who is right or wrong. Btw, some big majority did claim the Earth was flat.

I am not claiming Wiki has the highest degree of reliability. Apparently the only criticism of Kant listed in wiki is that of Schopenhauer. Where is your source to support your above assertion?

Wrong again, Schopenhauer did discuss about metaphysics in a positive note, but his philosophy is not fundamentally metaphysical and ultimately not resting on anything ontological.

The last para of Schopenhauer in WAWR Vol. I confirmed it.

But, conversely, to those in whom the will has turned and has denied itself,
this our world, which is so real, with all its suns and milky-ways, is nothing. 1

1 This is also just the Prajna-Paramita of the Buddhists,
the "beyond all knowledge," i.e., the point at which subject and object are no more
[no longer exist]. (Cf. J. J. Schmidt, " Ueber das Mahajana und Pradschna-Paramita.")

Schopenhauer did rely on some of Kant's idea but the rest of his philosophy is from his own thoughts with association from Hinduism and Buddhism.

As is noted, on the main issues you are normally off tangent.

Have you ever had any formal philosophical training at all? I have had 8 years of it, and 7 years outside academia on my own time. Further, have you read both volumes of WAWR in their entirety? No. I didn't think so. You are quoting from Wiki which shows you have no access to any real academic literature on these things whatsoever--nor that you have ever actually devoutely studied them in depth for years on end. So stop being so presumptuous as if you knew what you were talking about, because you obviously don't.

Have you ever had any formal philosophical training at all? I have had 8 years of it, and 7 years outside academia on my own time.

Further, have you read both volumes of WAWR in their entirety? No. I didn't think so. You are quoting from Wiki which shows you have no access to any real academic literature on these things whatsoever--nor that you have ever actually devoutely studied them in depth for years on end. So stop being so presumptuous as if you knew what you were talking about, because you obviously don't.

You need to pick up all the modern day commentary on Kant's Critique, stop cherry-picking isolated passages out of context that *appear* to support your point, and stop mentioning only a very small minority of misguided people who agree with you while ignoring all the rest of the scholarship which emphatically disagrees. I have devoted my strictest attention to the Critique many times over; I possess extensive notes about it which come from my own readings and others' readings of the text; and I have written several papers on this work myself. But guess what: I do NOT see George Berkeley's Idealism evident anywhere in the Critique.

253. At the foundation of well-founded belief lies belief that is not founded. On Certainty - Wittgenstein

On this note, both Berkeley and Kant introduced the mind as a critical concept in their consideration of reality.

Berkeley made horrible blunders, and his philosophy is rather reserved for the simple-minded. I doesn't accomplish anything. It is dead end. So I strongly recommend devoting your full blown attention to Kant in depth instead. His philosophy is incredibly fruitful and fuels further research and exploration unlike Berkeley's philosophy which is a stale dead end.



.